ARTICLES (PEER REVIEWED) ‘Egmont, Who Was He?’ The Debate Over Restoration of the Name of Taranaki Maunga Ewan Morris Corresponding author: Ewan Morris, historyewan@gmail.com DOI: https://doi.org/10.5130/phrj.v29i0.8191 Article History: Received 19/05/2022; Accepted 08/11/2022; Published 06/12/2022 In recent years, the question of whether New Zealand’s official name should be replaced by the Māori name Aotearoa has been the subject of public debate.1 This debate has shown the continuing power of place names to engage public interest, and to act as a focus for wider concerns about history, identity and culture.2 Yet recent arguments over Aotearoa versus New Zealand seem relatively restrained compared to the intense contestation over a place name that took place more than 35 years ago, long before controversy could erupt on social media. In 1985, the Taranaki Māori Trust Board’s application for official recognition of the Māori name of Taranaki Maunga was strongly resisted by many Pākehā (New Zealanders of European descent), who were determined to retain Mount Egmont as the name of the maunga (mountain).3 The controversy led to a compromise, which saw the maunga officially named ‘Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont’ in 1986. It is only now, decades later, that recognition of Taranaki as the sole name of the maunga appears imminent. The Taranaki Maunga settlement between the iwi (tribes) of Taranaki and the Crown is expected to be completed soon. The settlement, intended to provide redress for Crown breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, will reportedly change the official name of the maunga and recognise the maunga as a legal person.4 With further change to the official name and legal status of the maunga on the horizon, it is timely to look back at the debate that occurred in the 1980s. In this article, I will describe the debate and discuss the themes of history, identity, Māori/Pākehā relations and democracy that were central to it. I will also consider how the intensity of the debate can be explained and what pupils might learn if they examine the debate as part of the new requirement to study Aotearoa New Zealand’s histories in schools. Public History Review Vol. 29, 2022 © 2022 by the author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license. Citation: Morris, E. 2022. ‘Egmont, Who Was He?’ The Debate Over Restoration of the Name of Taranaki Maunga. Public History Review, 29, 114–127. https://doi.org/10.5130/ phrj.v29i0.8191 ISSN 1833- 4989 | Published by UTS ePRESS | https://epress. lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index. php/phrj DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING INTEREST The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. FUNDING The author(s) received no  financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. 114 mailto:historyewan@gmail.com https://doi.org/10.5130/phrj.v29i0.8191 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.5130/phrj.v29i0.8191 https://doi.org/10.5130/phrj.v29i0.8191 https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/phrj https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/phrj https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/phrj The Proposal to Restore the Name of the Maunga As well as the name of the maunga, Taranaki is the name of a large region (often referred to as a province) on the west coast of New Zealand’s North Island, centred on the maunga. In addition, Taranaki is the name of one of the eight iwi of the region. The other iwi of Taranaki are Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi, Ngāti Ruanui, Ngāruahine, Ngāti Maru, Te Atiawa, Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama. In 1986, Taranaki’s population was 107,600, out of a total New Zealand population of around 3.3 million.5 Taranaki Maunga is the region’s defining geographical feature. A dormant volcano, the maunga is cone- shaped and relatively symmetrical. Taranaki Maunga is 2,518 metres (8,261 feet) high and (when not covered by clouds) dominates the landscape throughout the region. Taranaki Māori regard the maunga as their tupuna (ancestor), and the maunga features strongly in Māori traditions in the region.6 Taranaki Maunga seen from the vicinity of Waihī Cemetery, near Normanby in South Taranaki. The cemetery is located near the remains of a redoubt built by colonial forces during the New Zealand Wars. (Photograph by Ewan Morris) The Taranaki region has a fraught history, having been one of the main sites of conflict over land and sovereignty during the New Zealand Wars of the 1860s. After the wars, large areas of land in Taranaki were confiscated from Māori as punishment for alleged Māori rebellion, and most of this land was given by the government to Pākehā settlers. The story of the contestation over the name of the maunga is inseparable from the wider history of colonisation and confiscation in Taranaki.7 That history includes the 1865 confiscation of the maunga and the surrounding land by the New Zealand Government and the later incorporation of the maunga into Egmont National Park. It is also a history of continuing struggle by the eight iwi of Taranaki to reverse the confiscation and gain legal recognition of their historical, spiritual and cultural relationships with the maunga.8 I cannot do justice to the broader story in this article, however. While the name is closely intertwined with the legal status of the maunga, I will focus on the naming debate, in the hope that it illuminates the larger history. It is generally acknowledged that Māori have called the maunga by a number of names, but Taranaki became the most widely used.9 Captain James Cook renamed the maunga Egmont in honour of the Earl of Egmont, a former First Lord of the Admiralty, when the Endeavour sailed past the Taranaki coast in January 1770.10 The names Taranaki and Egmont for the maunga sometimes appeared together on official maps until as late as 1930, although ‘Mount Egmont’ became the name commonly used by Pākehā.11 Even Morris Public History Review, Vol. 29, 2022115 so, there were some Pākehā who preferred the Māori name. In 1938, the mayor of the Taranaki town of Hāwera, J.E. Campbell, told a meeting of the Aotea Māori Association that the name of the maunga was a ‘disaster’ and that ‘the old name of Taranaki’ should be restored in time for the New Zealand centennial in 1940. His view was supported by the Rev Paahi Moke of New Plymouth, who said that ‘Taranaki always had been and will be the name for the mountain recognised by the Maori race’.12 For much of the twentieth century, Māori and Pākehā each used their own names for the maunga. In the public sphere, however, the name Mount Egmont was used almost exclusively, because Pākehā dominated public institutions. It was not until the 1970s that this situation faced significant challenge. A formal proposal to restore the Māori name of the maunga was first put to the government in 1975 by the Taranaki Māori Trust Board, which included representatives of the eight iwi of Taranaki. In October 1975, Labour Party Minister of Māori Affairs Matiu Rata said the government had accepted in principle the trust board’s request to return the maunga to Māori and to restore the Māori name, calling the name Egmont a ‘misnomer of the worst degree’. Prime Minister Bill Rowling, however, said that no decision had been made on the matter.13 The news that the name of the maunga might change was greeted with alarm by some. When the Taranaki Herald asked its readers ‘Do you wish the name of Mt Egmont to be changed to Mt Taranaki?’, 908 were against and 99 in favour. There was also much opposition to the proposal in the letters columns of Taranaki’s two main newspapers.14 With an election campaign under way, Rowling sought to defuse the controversy. In November 1975, he said that the government was not going to ‘change things that are part of New Zealand history without a very good reason’ or without public support.15 Rata then stated that any decision about the name or ownership of the maunga would be postponed until after the election, to allow time to discuss it fully.16 The National Party government that came in after the election announced, without first informing Taranaki Māori, that the official name of the maunga would remain Egmont.17 The government focused instead on a symbolic return of the maunga to Māori. In 1978, the maunga was vested in the Taranaki Māori Trust Board and then immediately gifted back to the nation as part of the national park, but the Waitangi Tribunal later found that there was no evidence that Taranaki Māori freely agreed to this arrangement.18 While the government hoped that the Mount Egmont Vesting Act, and related changes to the composition of the Egmont National Park Board, had put Māori concerns about the maunga to rest, for Taranaki Māori the struggle continued. A 1983 report on Māori perspectives on the maunga noted continuing bitterness about the inadequacy of consultation on the Mount Egmont Vesting Act and said the grievance about the failure to recognise Taranaki as the name of the maunga was deeply felt by Māori.19 In 1983- 84, the Taranaki Māori Trust Board again raised the issue of the name, and in March 1985 the trust board submitted a formal proposal for the maunga to be named Taranaki.20 In its submission to the New Zealand Geographic Board, the body responsible for assigning official place names, the trust board argued for the restoration of the name Taranaki based on the history, mythology and deep spiritual significance to Māori of the maunga.21 In August 1985, the Geographic Board voted unanimously that the maunga should ‘revert to its original name “Taranaki”, but that the name Egmont be continued as a secondary name in brackets’.22 Gazettal of the board’s intention to assign the name ‘Mount Taranaki (Egmont)’ triggered a three- month period during which objections could be lodged. After that, the board was required to report to the Minister of Lands on any objections received and its final decision, which the minister could then confirm, modify or reverse.23 By the time the Geographic Board released its proposal, it was already clear that it would face strong Pākehā opposition, particularly within Taranaki province. Noting the strength of feeling on the issue, a deputation of local MPs and the chairman of the Taranaki United Council met with the Minister of Lands. They argued that the naming proposal should proceed more slowly, expressed concern that the debate was Morris Public History Review, Vol. 29, 2022116 stirring up racial division in the province, and suggested that the Geographic Board should visit Taranaki to show that it was taking account of local viewpoints.24 Support for this view came from an unexpected source: former Minister of Māori Affairs Matiu Rata. Rata phoned the Geographic Board to say that, while he strongly supported the naming proposal, the board’s decision should not take effect for two years, during which time the government should fund publicity on the history of the maunga. He also suggested that the Geographic Board should sit in Taranaki to hear local perspectives, a suggestion the board did not take up.25 Although the Geographic Board’s legislation at the time only allowed for submissions objecting to the proposal, it received submissions both opposing and supporting the proposed name. Within the submission period, the Geographic Board received 127 letters of objection signed by 183 individuals; six petitions objecting to the proposal, with a total of 10,534 signatures; and 17 objections from community groups and 12 from Taranaki local government bodies. Most of these objections came from within the province of Taranaki. Another 42 letters of objection, representing 169 signatories, went to the Minister of Lands, although many of these people also lodged objections with the Geographic Board. In support of the proposal, the board received 57 letters with 427 signatures, and the minister received 31 letters representing 184 signatures.26 When the Geographic Board met in January 1986, it confirmed its original proposal but added the recommendation that ‘in view of the strength and nature of the objections, the name “Egmont” be the alternative name’ and that the official form of the two names should be ‘Mt Taranaki or Mt Egmont’.27 However, the board subsequently received legal advice that, under its Act, it could confirm its original proposal or uphold the objections and recommend no change, but could not put forward a new proposal.28 Consequently, the report sent to the minister simply confirmed the board’s proposal of August 1985. It concluded that ‘“Taranaki” is an original Maori name, it has great historical and geographical significance to the earliest discoverers and settlers and it is an established name in local usage.’ The report noted that the board had taken account of local feeling by proposing the continuance of ‘Egmont’ as a secondary name in brackets.29 Minister of Lands Koro Wētere sought further advice from the Geographic Board, which, despite the limitations in its legislation, recommended that Taranaki and Egmont be recognised as alternative names for the maunga.30 Wētere accepted this revised recommendation and, on 2 May 1986, announced that the new official name would be ‘Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont’. His press release explained that individuals or organisations would be free to use either name on its own, however maps and other publications covered by the New Zealand Geographic Board Act would be required to use the name ‘Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont’, in that order.31 At the time of writing, this remains the official name of the maunga.32 Wētere’s announcement was met with a mixed response, with some seeing it as a reasonable compromise and others as a confusing cop- out.33 A member’s bill introduced by New Plymouth MP Tony Friedlander would have required the minister, before confirming a change to the name of Mount Egmont, to take reasonable steps to ensure that a majority of Taranaki residents approved of the change. The bill was referred to a select committee but was allowed to lapse at the end of the parliamentary session.34 The Public Debate About the Naming Proposal The public debate about the name of the maunga started in 1983 and continued until 1986, reaching a crescendo in 1985. The issue was debated primarily within the province of Taranaki, but people from other parts of New Zealand also made their views known, partly because the maunga was seen as important to the nation as a whole, and partly because the debate was believed to have implications for place names elsewhere in the country. In addition to the submissions received by the Geographic Board, the Minister of Lands and the select committee considering Friedlander’s Bill, there were many letters to the editors of newspapers, particularly Morris Public History Review, Vol. 29, 2022117 the two main Taranaki newspapers, the Taranaki Daily News and the Taranaki Herald. The electronic media also covered the issue: there were news reports on national radio and television, and the issue was extensively debated on local radio.35 The Taranaki Daily News undertook a ‘poll’ of its readers in February 1985, inviting them to return coupons printed in the paper and tick either ‘I favour the name Mt Egmont’ or ‘I favour the name Mt Taranaki’. Additional space was provided in which to give reasons for supporting one name or the other.36 Several weeks later, the paper printed the results under the headline ‘Egmont, not Taranaki: overwhelming “no” to change’. The newspaper reported that it had received 7,009 votes, of which 6,048 supported Egmont and 961 supported Taranaki. The poll, it said, should ‘lay to rest any doubts as to what the people of this part of the country really want’ and ‘wipe out any theory that those favouring the name Taranaki (particularly Maoris) feel more strongly about the naming controversy than do those who prefer the name Mt Egmont’.37 The unscientific Taranaki Daily News poll cannot be taken as representative of public opinion in Taranaki, and undoubtedly did not represent Māori opinion. However, the relatively high response rate does provide some indication of the strength of feeling on the issue. Many official and voluntary organisations in Taranaki expressed their opposition to the naming proposal. Almost all the Taranaki local authorities were opposed, as was the umbrella body, the Taranaki Local Bodies’ Association, and the regional authority, the Taranaki United Council. Others opposed to the renaming included the Egmont Electric Power Board, the Taranaki Electorate division of the National Party, and groups representing farming, business, historical, mountaineering and tramping interests. There was also a Save Mount Egmont’s Name Committee, formed in August 1985 by Cliff Emeny, a long- time campaigner on the political right. The committee was responsible for a 5,747- signature petition opposing the naming proposal.38 Supporting the naming proposal, in addition to the Taranaki Māori Trust Board and a few local authorities, were the Taranaki National Parks and Reserves Board, the Taranaki Māori Committee, several other Māori representative bodies, and some environmental, feminist and anti- racist organisations. Those who took part in the debate were divided into two broad camps: Egmont supporters, who were mainly more conservative Pākehā, and Taranaki supporters, who were mainly Māori or more liberal Pākehā.39 Both views were well represented in the newspapers and in submissions received by the Geographic Board, although the views of Māori were under- represented compared to those of Pākehā. The debate was often impassioned and, at times, had a nasty edge to it. The Taranaki Daily News reported that more than 200 pro- Egmont voters in its poll ‘expressed sentiments either bordering on racism or well over the border’, while pro- Taranaki comments ‘were comparatively gentle in tone’.40 On both sides of the debate, participants returned repeatedly to several key themes: belonging and identity, history, Māori- Pākehā relations, and democracy. Both Māori and Pākehā asserted the importance of the maunga to their senses of identity and belonging to place. For Māori, the maunga was an ancestor whose proper name should be respected.41 One writer who affiliated to Taranaki iwi wrote that her heritage was linked with Taranaki Maunga, and that by recognising the Māori name ‘our lost mana (status or authority) will be restored’.42 For some Pākehā, restoring the indigenous name would not only recognise the spiritual connection of Māori to the maunga, but also contribute to the necessary replacement of a colonial British identity with one rooted in the land and the Pacific region.43 Opponents of recognising the Māori name of the maunga frequently stressed that the emotional attachment of Pākehā to the maunga was at least as great as that of Māori. ‘No Maori loves Mt Egmont more than my friends & I who tramp it, study it, photograph it, paint it, & write of it in all its moods’, wrote one objector.44 Egmont meant ‘home’ to Taranaki people, and changing the name of the maunga would mean a loss of identity and belonging; it would be like renaming a lifelong friend.45 For some, Pākehā had an even stronger claim to the maunga than Māori. A number commented that they often tramped, Morris Public History Review, Vol. 29, 2022118 skied or climbed the maunga but rarely saw Māori there.46 For many local Pākehā, the maunga was a place to actively explore with boot, ski and crampon.47 For Māori, however, the maunga was an ancestor to be respected, not ‘a clump of dirt that’s there for people to tramp and climb all over in their weekends’, as Syd Kahu of the Rangitaawhi Marae Trust put it.48 Arguments based on identity and belonging were closely connected to those based on history. A key argument in support of the naming proposal was that Māori had named the maunga Taranaki long before Cook arrived.49 The imposition of British names on a landscape that was already named was an act of cultural arrogance.50 Another argument was that the maunga should not be named after an obscure British aristocrat who had never visited New Zealand.51 Ngāti Ruanui kaumātua (elder) Turangapito (Sandy) Parata later recalled gently challenging opponents of restoring the Māori name of the maunga by asking: ‘Egmont, who was he?’52 One response to such questioning was to assert that the name Egmont should be retained because it had been bestowed by Captain Cook, an important figure in New Zealand’s history.53 The name was also linked more broadly to European explorers and settlers seen as having built up Taranaki and New Zealand society.54 Descendants of a Pākehā family that arrived in Taranaki in 1841 wrote that the maunga and the name Egmont symbolised ‘the hardships and endurance of a sturdy race of people who… built the foundation of Taranaki’ by clearing the forests and establishing farms that brought prosperity and peace.55 Supporters of change were accused of trying to rewrite history by removing a name that was an important part of Pākehā heritage.56 Several Egmont supporters argued that Māori should accept some European place names in recognition of the benefits (said to include peace, civilisation and education) they claimed had been brought to Māori by Pākehā settlers.57 Taranaki supporters disagreed and argued that restoring the Māori name of the maunga was a form of redress for injustices suffered by Māori, including war, land confiscation and the repression of Māori culture.58 Divergent views of Taranaki’s history were also reflected in discussion of Māori- Pākehā relations during the naming debate. Supporters of the naming proposal declared that the debate had brought to the surface existing ethnic tension and cultural misunderstanding, rooted in a history of Māori dispossession. Above all, it had exposed a level of underlying racism within the Pākehā community.59 For Taranaki Māori, it was hurtful but not surprising to encounter ‘the deep- seated racism and prejudice that festers beneath a thin surface of racial harmony and respect in Taranaki’.60 Some Egmont supporters argued that the debate was causing dissension between Pākehā and Māori, rather than reflecting existing tensions.61 The image of previously harmonious Māori- Pākehā relations was, however, undermined by others within the pro- Egmont camp who argued, often quite bitterly, that the naming proposal was another instance of Māori being privileged at the expense of Pākehā.62 Some wrote in derogatory terms about Māori people or culture, while others were convinced that an extremist anti- European agenda lay behind the campaign to recognise the Māori name of the maunga.63 For some Taranaki supporters, recognition of the Māori name of the maunga would be a positive step towards a bicultural or multicultural society.64 A few linked their support for the proposal with responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi, but references to the treaty were surprisingly infrequent, and almost absent on the pro- Egmont side.65 For many Egmont supporters, the naming proposal demonstrated that Pākehā culture was not receiving equality of respect with that of Māori. They pointed out that most place names in Taranaki were of Māori origin and argued that in a bicultural or multicultural society, Pākehā culture and heritage deserved protection too.66 It was also argued that the status quo exemplified biculturalism, since the province had a Māori name and the maunga a European one.67 One of the main objections to the naming proposal was that the process was undemocratic and was ignoring majority public opinion.68 Objectors cited the Taranaki Daily News ‘opinion poll’ as evidence that Morris Public History Review, Vol. 29, 2022119 the great majority of people in Taranaki wanted to retain the name Egmont for the maunga. The maunga, they said, belonged to all New Zealanders, not just to Māori. At the same time, Egmont supporters argued that the name should not be decided by national bodies or politicians, but by the people of the province. In reply, those who supported restoring the name Taranaki commented that no democratic process took place when the name Egmont was imposed on the maunga.69 They rebutted claims based on the newspaper poll, noting that Māori were less likely to participate in such polls, which were not consistent with the face- to- face, consensus- based decision- making favoured by Māori.70 Explaining the Intensity of the Debate Several factors help to explain the intensity of the debate over the name of the maunga: the symbolic power of place names generally; the huge importance of the maunga to Māori and Pākehā in Taranaki; the still raw and unresolved legacies of colonisation in the province; and the period of enormous social change in which the debate took place. It may seem surprising that so much attention and passion focused on the symbolic issue of the name of the maunga, rather than on more practical questions of ownership and management. Naming, however, is fundamental to identification with place: it is part of the process by which spaces become demarcated and knowable as places with which people can form emotional and spiritual connections. Contestation over names may be symbolic, but it also points to deeper questions of power: whose names gain official or de facto public recognition, and how does this change as power relations shift over time?71 The intensity of the debate over the name of the maunga showed the depth of the attachment of Taranaki people, both Māori and Pākehā, to the maunga. The maunga is the dominant feature of the Taranaki landscape and is widely used as a tohu or symbol of iwi and provincial identity. For Māori, as Dennis Ngāwhare explains: ‘The bones of our tūpuna (ancestors) are buried on the maunga and the mountain was named after Rua Taranaki, the eponymous forefather of our tribes. To the hapū and iwi of Taranaki, the maunga is a tūpuna, our koro, our grandfather.’72 Pākehā connection with the maunga is different, though no less real. The maunga has been a place of recreation and inspiration for Pākehā, but also a source of material wealth due to the influence of the maunga on soil and climatic conditions conducive to dairy farming. Pākehā identification with the maunga was reinforced by the use of the image of the maunga and the name Egmont in commercial and organisational branding (a phenomenon the artist Fiona Clark aptly refers to as ‘Egmontiana’).73 As Ian Wedde writes, ‘Mount Egmont’ became for Pākehā ‘an ideal, a symbol of individuality, even of nationhood, appearing on the wrappers of butter, cheese, knitwear, and other products of the region, as well as in a great deal of art’.74 The continuing trauma, shame and silences arising from the very particular and brutal history of colonisation in Taranaki undoubtedly also shaped the naming debate.75 The debate took place when Taranaki Māori were still waiting for the government to respond to their longstanding calls for redress of historical injustices, while many Pākehā remained in a state of wilful ignorance about colonial history. For Taranaki Māori, the name restoration process was itself a contribution to righting colonial wrongs, but historical narratives that depicted colonisation in positive terms remained popular among Pākehā. The 1970s and 1980s were a time of great change in Taranaki, giving rise to tension and unease that found expression in the contestation over the maunga. Economic, social and cultural change was enormously disruptive for Māori and Pākehā alike. In the face of change and uncertainty, people may cling more tightly to symbols like names that are seen to stand for stability and continuity with the past. The National Government’s ‘Think Big’ era, which saw the expansion of the petrochemical industry in Taranaki, was followed by radical economic restructuring and growing unemployment under the Fourth Morris Public History Review, Vol. 29, 2022120 Labour Government.76 Meanwhile, Māori cultural renaissance and political activism flourished in Taranaki and throughout Aotearoa. In 1985, the Waitangi Tribunal was given jurisdiction to inquire into claims of historical breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, and a bill to make Māori an official language (enacted as the Māori Language Act 1987) had its first reading only days before Koro Wētere announced his decision on the name of the maunga.77 There was also growing political recognition of Māori environmental values, and a landmark 1983 Waitangi Tribunal report on a claim concerning the pollution of coastal reefs in Taranaki strengthened the argument for better protection of the cultural and spiritual connection of Māori to the natural world.78 For many Pākehā, change was experienced as a relative loss of privilege and cultural authority, despite the continued dominance of Pākehā culture and institutions.79 Cultural insecurity was apparent in the views of those Pākehā who complained during the debate that Māori were getting everything their own way and were being privileged above the majority. One Taranaki resident described the backlash against the proposal to restore the Māori name of the maunga as ‘the rabid campaign to keep Taranaki’s mountain pakeha’.80 For many Pākehā participants in the debate, there was a palpable sense that displacement of the name Egmont meant a loss of their claim to the maunga. Māori who called for change based on their deep connection with the maunga were seen as stirring up trouble, while the strong feelings of many Pākehā about names were viewed as normal and natural, a position nicely satirised in a cartoon by David Fletcher. David Fletcher, ‘The Politician’ cartoon strip, published in New Zealand Times, 18 August 1985. (Copyright: David Fletcher, used with permission) Other Pākehā, however, took a different view. Influenced by Māori activism, global anti- colonial struggles, the waning influence of Britain and growing New Zealand cultural nationalism, they welcomed the recognition of an indigenous name for the maunga as a move towards redressing historical injustice and promoting a sense of cultural identity that was unique to Aotearoa. For Māori, the economic restructuring of the 1980s caused significant damage, but political and cultural change in response to Māori protest created new opportunities. Taranaki Māori were able to use mechanisms such as New Zealand Geographic Board and Waitangi Tribunal processes to make progress in their long and patient campaign for redress of the loss they suffered when the maunga was confiscated from them. While the 1986 compromise on the name was only a small step forward, the naming debate provided an opportunity for Māori connections with the maunga to be publicly articulated and recognised. Morris Public History Review, Vol. 29, 2022121 Learning From and About the Taranaki Maunga Naming Debate In 1985, pupils in a New Plymouth primary school class wrote individual letters to the New Zealand Geographic Board, explaining why they supported either Taranaki or Egmont as the name of the maunga. I imagine their teacher initiating a class discussion on a topical issue of the day, writing up arguments for and against each name, and then setting an assignment of using these arguments in a letter. One student believed that changing the name from Egmont would be confusing for visitors: ‘An Australian might visit and Well not lik[e]ly but it could happen. And he wanted to see Mt Egmont, he would never get to see Mt Egmont. On his map it would say Egmont when the name was Taranaki.’ But another thought that ‘people will still come to see the mountain whatever name it has. Some other pakeha’s say the maori’s shouldn’t have changed it. But we never Captain Cook did. Anyway the name suits Taranaki.’81 Today, any school- aged children of the young letter- writers of 1985 may be able to study the maunga name debate not as current affairs, but as history. When the new curriculum content on Aotearoa New Zealand’s histories is introduced in schools in 2023, place names will be a key topic for one of the four historical ‘contexts’, ‘Tūrangawaewae me te kaitiakitanga | Place and environment’.82 In Years 7- 8, students will learn how Māori ‘expressed their connection to place by naming the land and its features’, while in Years 9- 10 they will study how settlers ‘renamed places and features to reflect their own cultural origins’.83 Year 9- 10 students will be asked to consider: ‘Who gets the right to name physical and cultural features? What do we do about people’s different perspectives on place names?’84 What might today’s school students learn by taking the contested naming of Taranaki Maunga as a historical case study?85 For a start, they could consider how names are placed and replaced, ignored and restored, as power relations shift over time. With colonisation and the supplanting of Māori authority by Pākehā, the Māori name of the maunga was displaced. But as Māori activism pressured the government to respond to Māori grievances, and as some Pākehā became more sympathetic to Māori political and cultural demands, Taranaki was given official recognition alongside Egmont and gradually became the more commonly used name. This has been a long and highly contested process, but it is also remarkable that in only a few decades a change that was bitterly opposed by many Pākehā has gained general acceptance. The challenge of explaining how this transformation came about could provide rich material for class discussion. Students could also think about why Māori and Pākehā identified so strongly with their preferred names for the maunga, and what this tells us about their respective senses of identity, heritage and connection to place. An important feature of place names is that they usually endure across time, linking past and present generations and helping to create a stable sense of identity. What stories did people tell about the origins and meanings of the names of the maunga, and about their personal, family and community connections with those names? What did people feel they would gain or lose if the Māori name of the maunga was, or was not, restored? Finally, studying the maunga naming debate would allow students to reflect on the role of history itself in such debates.86 As discussed above, history was one of the resources drawn on by participants in the debate, while history also helps to explain the debate’s nature and intensity. Historical arguments were mobilised in the debate, and at the root of these arguments were conflicting views of the legitimacy and consequences of colonisation in Taranaki. The unresolved legacies of colonisation also explain the underlying social divisions that found an outlet in the debate. Divisions and grievances resulting from colonisation still live on today. Some of the attitudes towards history, Māori culture and perceived Māori privilege expressed during the naming debate are still found in parts of the Taranaki Pākehā community and have re- emerged in recent debates over land issues and Māori wards in local government.87 Some Pākehā also continue to disrespect Māori cultural values in the ways in which they interact with the maunga.88 But there has been progress, too. The patience with which Taranaki Māori have asserted the importance to them of the maunga and the name Taranaki is finally paying off. Morris Public History Review, Vol. 29, 2022122 Some on both sides of the naming debate in the 1980s predicted that the dual official names for the maunga would lead to the gradual eclipse of the name Egmont by Taranaki. These predictions have been borne out, and use of ‘Mount Egmont’ has become increasingly rare in the decades since. Now, the forthcoming Taranaki Maunga Treaty Settlement promises to give the maunga legal personality and to finally recognise Taranaki as the sole name of the maunga. The grandchildren of the members of the 1985 primary school class may find themselves asking, not ‘Egmont, who was he?’, but ‘Egmont, where was that?’ Acknowledgements Much of this article was written while I was a Visiting Scholar at the School of History, Classics and Archaeology at the University of Edinburgh in 2016- 17, and I would like to thank the university for making its library and other resources available to me. Thanks also to the staff of the New Zealand Geographic Board Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa; the editors of this issue of Public History Review and the anonymous reviewers of my article; David Fletcher for permission to reproduce his cartoon; and Fiona Lincoln and Paul Diamond for their help and encouragement. Endnotes 1 Manch, M. 2021, What’s in a Name? Aotearoa- New Zealand Debate Continues to Simmer (Online). Available: https:// www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/126468227/whats- in- a- name- aotearoanew- zealand- debate- continues- to- simmer; Morris, E. 2019, Aotearoa and New Zealand: History, Politics and Place Names (Online). Available: https://pastword. blog/2019/02/06/aotearoa- and- new- zealand- history- politics- and- place- names. Some Māori from New Zealand’s South Island have reservations about the adoption of Aotearoa as an official name for the whole country, noting that the name originally referred to the North Island: Marshall, A. 2021, Aotearoa- New Zealand Name Change Debate: Ngai Tahu Leader Says Don’t Rush Name Change (Online). Available: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/aotearoa- new- zealand- name- change- debate- ngai- tahu- leader- says- dont- rush- name- change/JNK43LP63NSNP3LJ6TENMFRPPY. 2 For broader context on Māori and Pākehā place naming, see Taonui, R. 2008, Tapa Whenua – Naming Places (Online). Available: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/tapa- whenua- naming- places; McKinnon, M. 2008, Place Names (Online). Available: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/place- names. 3 Some Taranaki iwi prefer the spelling ‘mounga’ as corresponding better to pronunciation in the local dialect. Pending completion of the Taranaki Maunga settlement and official recognition of the Māori name, I have used the more common spelling ‘maunga’, which is used in the record of understanding between the iwi of Taranaki and the Crown. I also acknowledge that, due to differing cultural perspectives, the mountain formerly known to Pākehā as Mount Egmont does not correspond exactly with the maunga (mounga) known to Māori as Taranaki. The record of understanding for the Maunga settlement refers to ‘Ngā Maunga’ (‘the Mountains’), and records that the iwi of Taranaki view Ngā Maunga as a living, indivisible whole, incorporating the peaks of Taranaki, Pouākai and Kaitake and the surrounding environs. Ngā Iwi o Taranaki and the Crown, Te Anga Pūtakerongo mō Ngā Maunga o Taranaki, Pouākai me Kaitake: Record of Understanding for Mount Taranaki, Pouākai and the Kaitake Ranges, 20 December 2017, clause 3.4. 4 Coster, D. 2020, Taranaki Maunga: Settlement Looms on Horizon, with Changes in the Wind (Online). Available: https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou- tiaki/123597917/taranaki- maunga- settlement- looms- on- horizon- with- changes- in- the- wind; Harvey, H. 2021, What’s in a Name? Restoring the Mana of Taranaki Maunga (Online). Available: https://www.stuff.co.nz/ pou- tiaki/125720045/whats- in- a- name- restoring- the- mana- of- taranaki- maunga; Coster, D. 2022, Talks Continue Around Taranaki Maunga Settlement Deal (Online). Available: https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou- tiaki/129234713/talks- continue- around- taranaki- maunga- settlement- deal. At the time of writing, a deed of settlement for the Taranaki Maunga claims was expected to be signed by the end of 2022, with legislation implementing the settlement to follow. 5 Population figures from New Zealand Official Yearbook 1987- 88, ch 5, digitised text at https://www3.stats.govt.nz/New_ Zealand_Official_Yearbooks/1987- 88/NZOYB_1987- 88.html. For an overview of the Taranaki region, see Lambert, R. 2015, Taranaki Region (Online). Available: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/taranaki- region. 6 One well- known Māori tradition about the maunga is summarised at Lambert, ibid. 7 The literature on the colonisation of Taranaki province is extensive. A useful starting point is the report of the Waitangi Tribunal into breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi in Taranaki: Waitangi Tribunal, The Taranaki Report: Kaupapa Tuatahi: Muru me te Raupatu, Legislation Direct, Wellington, 1996. 8 Māori perspectives on the history and significance of the maunga can be found in Te Miringa Hohaia, ‘The Foundation Story: An Account Interpreted from Manuscripts Held by the Taranaki Iwi’, in Te Maunga Taranaki: Views of a Mountain, Govett- Brewster Art Gallery, New Plymouth, 2001, pp9- 15; Dennis Ngāwhare- Pounamu, ‘Living Memory and the Travelling Mountain Narrative of Taranaki’, PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 2014. A Pākehā history of the maunga is A.B. Scanlan, Egmont: The Story of a Mountain, A.H. & A.W. Reed, Wellington, 1961. Useful context regarding the history of Morris Public History Review, Vol. 29, 2022123 https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/126468227/whats-in-a-name-aotearoanew-zealand-debate-continues-to-simmer https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/126468227/whats-in-a-name-aotearoanew-zealand-debate-continues-to-simmer https://pastword.blog/2019/02/06/aotearoa-and-new-zealand-history-politics-and-place-names https://pastword.blog/2019/02/06/aotearoa-and-new-zealand-history-politics-and-place-names https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/aotearoa-new-zealand-name-change-debate-ngai-tahu-leader-says-dont-rush-name-change/JNK43LP63NSNP3LJ6TENMFRPPY https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/aotearoa-new-zealand-name-change-debate-ngai-tahu-leader-says-dont-rush-name-change/JNK43LP63NSNP3LJ6TENMFRPPY http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/tapa-whenua-naming-places http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/place-names https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou-tiaki/123597917/taranaki-maunga-settlement-looms-on-horizon-with-changes-in-the-wind https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou-tiaki/125720045/whats-in-a-name-restoring-the-mana-of-taranaki-maunga https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou-tiaki/125720045/whats-in-a-name-restoring-the-mana-of-taranaki-maunga https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou-tiaki/129234713/talks-continue-around-taranaki-maunga-settlement-deal https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou-tiaki/129234713/talks-continue-around-taranaki-maunga-settlement-deal https://www3.stats.govt.nz/New_Zealand_Official_Yearbooks/1987-88/NZOYB_1987-88.html https://www3.stats.govt.nz/New_Zealand_Official_Yearbooks/1987-88/NZOYB_1987-88.html http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/taranaki-region the maunga and the national park is also provided by Matalena Tofa, ‘Unsettling Openings: Collaborative Environmental Management and Māori in Taranaki’, PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney, 2010, especially ch 8. 9 Other Māori names for the maunga have included Pukeonaki and Pukehaupapa. Hohaia, op cit, p9. 10 A.W. Reed, Place Names of New Zealand, revised by Peter Dowling, Raupo Books, Auckland, 2010, p113. 11 New Zealand Geographic Board (NZGB), Report of NZ Geographic Board to the Minister of Lands under Section 13 of the NZ Geographic Board Act 1946 on Objections Received to the Proposed Name Change of Mount Egmont, 1986, p3. 12 Auckland Star, 9 December 1938, p4. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for identifying the ‘Rev. P. Moki’ referred to in the Auckland Star as the Rev. Paahi (Percy) Moke. See also Taranaki Daily News (TDN), 17 January 1939 (in NZGB correspondence, vol 15, New Zealand Geographic Board Archives (NZGBA), Wellington; Patea Mail, 28 April 1939, p4; Franklin Times, 22 May 1939, p3. 13 Taranaki Herald (TH), 21 October 1975, clipping in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1/ pt 1, Archives New Zealand, Wellington (ANZW). 14 TH, 10 September 1975, clipping in AANS W5491 7613 Box 495 NP6/1/1/1 pt 1, ANZW; TH, 21- 22 October 1975, clipping in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1/ pt 1, ANZW; Departmental Report to Lands and Agriculture Committee on National Parks Amendment Bill, 22 November 1977, AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1/ pt 1, ANZW. 15 TH, 3 November 1975, clipping in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1/ pt 1, ANZW. 16 TDN, 8 November 1975, clipping in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1/ pt 1, ANZW. 17 Minister of Lands, press release, 4 March 1976, AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1/ pt 1, ANZW; Ngatata Love, Taranaki Māori Trust Board, to Venn Young, Minister of Lands, 11 March 1976, expressing disappointment that Taranaki Māori had not been informed of the decision before it was announced, and Young to Love, 30 March 1976, AANS W5491 7613 Box 495 NP6/1/1/1 pt 1, ANZW. 18 Mount Egmont Vesting Act 1978; Waitangi Tribunal, op cit, p299. The Mount Egmont Vesting Act describes the maunga as ‘Mount Egmont’, although the preamble to the Act acknowledges that the maunga is ‘known in Maori as Taranaki’. 19 Cheryl Rei, Te Maunga Taranaki: The Maori Viewpoint, 10 February 1983, AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1/ pt 1, ANZW. 20 Secretary, Taranaki Māori Trust Board, to Commissioner of Lands, New Plymouth, 7 March 1983; Minutes of Special Meeting of New Zealand Geographic Board (NZGB) with Maui Pomare of Taranaki Māori Trust Board, 11 June 1984, AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1/ pt 1, ANZW. 21 Secretary, Taranaki Māori Trust Board, to Secretary, NZGB, 15 March 1985, AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1/ pt 1, ANZW. 22 Minutes of NZGB Meeting, 6 August 1985, NZGBA. 23 New Zealand Geographic Board Act 1946, s 13. 24 Note of Meeting Held on 24 October 1985 with Deputation to Minister of Lands re Change of Name to Mount Taranaki, 15 November 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 25 Note by K. J. Twydle, Secretary, NZGB, of Phone Call from Matiu Rata, 22 November 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 26 New Zealand Geographic Board, Report (cited at note 11), pp4- 6. Additional submissions were received after the end of the submission period. 27 Minutes of NZGB Meeting, 29 January 1986, NZGBA. 28 Minutes of NZGB Meeting, 27 March 1986, NZGBA. 29 New Zealand Geographic Board, Report, p9. 30 Chairman, NZGB, to Minister of Lands, 25 March 1986, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 31 Minister of Lands, press release, 2 May 1986, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 32 New Zealand Geographic Board, 1986, Mount Taranaki or Mount Egmont (Online). Available: https://gazetteer.linz. govt.nz/place/3830 (Accessed 4 May 2022). 33 TDN, 3, 5 and 6 May 1986, clippings in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1 pt 2, ANZW. 34 New Zealand Geographic Board (Mount Egmont) Amendment Bill 1986, 15- 1; New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, vol 470, 1986, pp1232- 48 (debate on 23 April 1986); Select committee file on the Bill, ABGX W4536 Box 21, ANZW. 35 Transcripts of Radio New Zealand Morning Report Items, 7 and 8 August 1985; TV One 6:30 pm News Item, 6 August 1985; TV2 Eye Witness News Items, 5 and 6 August 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. Local radio reported ‘a largely critical response to what is seen as an undemocratic & bureaucratic disregard of local values and interests’: Chief Surveyor, New Plymouth, to K. Twydle, Secretary, NZGB, 8 August 1985, AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1 pt 2, ANZW. See also the reported response to Radio Taranaki’s decision to refer to the maunga as Mount Taranaki: TDN, 5 September 1985, clipping in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1 pt 2, ANZW. Morris Public History Review, Vol. 29, 2022124 https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/3830 https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/3830 36 TDN, 16 February 1985, clipping in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1/ pt 1, ANZW. 37 TDN, 2 March 1985, clipping in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1/ pt 1, ANZW. 38 TDN, 24 August 1985; TDN, nd (around 14- 15 September 1985); TDN, 11 November 1985, clippings in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1 pt 2, ANZW. 39 The debate can fairly be characterised as one between Taranaki and Egmont supporters, even though the Geographic Board had recommended the inclusion of ‘Egmont’ as a secondary name in parentheses, while some prominent opponents of the Geographic Board proposal supported recognising ‘Taranaki’ as a secondary name in the same way. There were also some proponents of dual naming: for example, ‘Maori Pakeha’, TDN, 23 February 1985; ‘Historian’, TDN, nd (clippings in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1/ pt 1, ANZW); Olive Baldwin to NZGB, 20 August 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 40 TDN, 2 March 1985, clipping in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1/ pt 1, ANZW. 41 For example, Sonny Waru in TDN, 18 August 1983 (clipping in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1/ pt 1, ANZW); Secretary, Taranaki Māori Committee, to Minister of Māori Affairs, 28 February 1985, AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1/ pt 1, ANZW. 42 Barbara Whitehead to Minister of Lands, 14 November 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 43 For example, Coordinator, Taranaki Women’s Refuge Collective, to NZGB, 20 November 1985; Ken Gorbey to Minister of Lands, 5 September 1985; Raymond Watemburg to NZGB, 1 October 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 44 E.P. Topping to NZGB, 11 November 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. See also Cardiff Women’s Division of Federated Farmers to NZGB, 25 September 1985; G.M. Elliot to NZGB, 13 August 1985; Doreen James to NZGB, 12 September 1985; G.N. Reed to NZGB, 20 November 1985; Audrey P. Smith to NZGB, 14 November 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 45 For example, Administration Officer, Hawera District Council to NZGB, 24 October 1985; President, Taranaki Local Bodies Association, to NZGB, 21 May 1985; L.R. Smith to NZGB, 15 November 1985; Robin Lethbridge Mason to NZGB, 26 November 1985; Heather Shoemaker to NZGB, 10 September 1985; V.M. Robertson to NZGB, 12 September 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 46 For example, Shirley Boyde to NZGB, 22 August 1985; Heather Shoemaker (identifying herself as ‘part- Maori’) to NZGB, 10 September 1985; Paul J. Roberts to Minister of Lands, 8 August 1985; Audrey P. Smith to NZGB, 14 November 1985; Colin Allen to NZGB, 19 June 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 47 Both the New Plymouth Tramping Club and the Mount Egmont Alpine Club opposed the naming proposal. National alpine organisations, however, remained neutral, and the Federated Mountain Clubs’ representative on the Geographic Board supported the naming proposal. 48 TDN, 23 August 1985 (clipping in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1 pt 2, ANZW); see also Sonny Waru, quoted in TDN 18 August 1983 (clipping in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1/ pt 1, ANZW). 49 For example, Wanganui Chronicle Editorial, quoted in TDN, 21 August 1985 (clipping in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1 pt 2, ANZW); Brenda Muller and others to NZGB, 27 November 1985, and P.H.C. and K.J. Lucas to NZGB, 19 August 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA; Tony Garnier in Evening Post (Wellington), 13 August 1985 (clipping in L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA). 50 New Plymouth City Councillor Muriel Livingston quoted in TDN, 19 July 1983; ‘Maori and Proud of it’, TDN, 21 July 1983, clippings in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1/ pt 1, ANZW. 51 For example, ‘Taranaki Too’, TDN, 16 August 1985 (clipping in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1 pt 2, ANZW); Edith H. Hill to NZGB, 21 November 1985; J. Ormond to NZGB, 30 October 1985; N.C. Begg to NZGB, 23 October 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. The eleventh Earl of Egmont, a 71- year- old Canadian rancher, was approached for his views. As he was deaf, his wife spoke on his behalf, stating that the family objected very strongly to the naming proposal: ‘You don’t go changing generations of tradition.’ Auckland Star, 10 August 1985; Sunday News, 11 August 1985 (clippings in L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA). 52 Quoted in Harvey, op cit. 53 For example, M.E. Levesque to NZGB, 30 October 1985; G.L Pearce to NZGB, 28 September 1985; Secretary, Taranaki Branch, New Zealand Founders’ Society, to NZGB, 12 September 1985; County Manager, Waimate West County Council, to Secretary for Internal Affairs, 19 September 1985; Chairman, Taranaki United Council and Taranaki Local Bodies Association, to NZGB, 8 November 1985; A.J. Treadwell to NZGB, 28 August 1985; Colin Allen to NZGB, 19 June 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 54 For example, Leonard S. Arrow to NZGB, 21 August 1985; Cardiff Women’s Division of Federated Farmers to NZGB, 25 September 1985; E. Hislop and J.R. Hislop to NZGB, 9 November 1985; Peter Henderson to NZGB, 8 August 1985; Meryl Webb and L.R. Webb to NZGB, nd, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 55 D.A. Ferguson and Heather Ferguson to NZGB, 5 August 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. See also the submission on behalf of descendants of early Pākehā settler Thomas Mason: Robin Lethbridge Mason to NZGB, 26 November 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 56 ‘One Race’, TDN, 16 August 1985 (clipping in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1 pt 2, ANZW); Shirley Boyde to NZGB, 22 August 1985; Frances M. Raye to NZGB, 17 August 1985; M. McNeill Adams to NZGB, 17 August 1985; Cardiff Morris Public History Review, Vol. 29, 2022125 Women’s Division of Federated Farmers, 25 September 1985; M. Kerr to NZGB, 15 September 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 57 For example, Tom Bates, TDN, 3 September 1985, and Cliff Emeny, TDN, 14 May 1986 (clippings in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1 pt 2, ANZW); Frances M. Raye to NZGB, 17 August 1985; Secretary, Makaka Country Women’s Institute to NZGB, 30 September 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 58 For example, Diane Bell, TDN, 13 August 1985; Diana O’Brien, TDN, 15 August 1985; J. Ormond, TDN, 15 August 1985; ‘Non Racist Comment for Once’, TDN, 22 August 1985; ‘Not Proud to be a Pakeha’, TDN, 28 August 1985; Jennifer Lawrence, TDN, 5 September 1985; Ira M.C. Matehaere, TDN, 8 May 1986 (clippings in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1 pt 2, ANZW); E.A. Collins to NZGB, 15 November 1985; E.L. Hond- Flavell to NZGB, 1 September 1985; Philip Tremewan to NZGB, 14 November 1985; L.H. Shand to NZGB, 14 November 1985; W.R. Sykes to NZGB, 1 December 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 59 For example, Juliet Batten, TDN, 2 September 1985; Jennifer Lawrence, TDN, 5 September 1985; report of Taranaki Māori Trust Board hui (meeting), TDN, 13 December 1985 (clippings in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1 pt 2, ANZW); Greg W. McManus, TH, 2 September 1985 (clipping in L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA); W.B. Dörflinger to NZGB, 8 November 1985; E.L. Hond- Flavell to NZGB, 1 September 1985; Secretary, Puketapu Hapū Trust to NZGB, nd (received 5 December 1985); Brian Bourke to Minister of Lands, 18 March 1986; R.J. Watemburg to NZGB, 1 October 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 60 P.L. Hond, TDN, 9 January 1986 (clipping in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1 pt 2, ANZW); see also Hinerau White to NZGB, 5 November 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 61 This view featured particularly in submissions from Taranaki local authorities. For example, Administration Officer, Hawera District Council, to NZGB, 24 October 1985; County Manager, Waimate West County Council, to Secretary for Internal Affairs, 19 September 1985; County Clerk, Stratford County Council, to NZGB, nd; Chairman, Taranaki United Council and Taranaki Local Bodies Association, to NZGB, 8 November 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 62 For example, ‘One Race’, TDN, 16 August 1985; ‘Proud Pakeha’, TDN, 17 August 1985; ‘Concerned with Name Change’, TDN, 27 August 1985 (clippings in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1 pt 2, ANZW); E.P. Topping to NZGB, 11 November 1985; John A. Batchelor to NZGB, nd; G.M. Elliot to NZGB, 13 August 1985; R.W. O’Byrne to NZGB, 21 September 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 63 Examples of derogatory views about Māori include, ‘One Race’, TDN, 16 August 1985; ‘Proud Pakeha’, TDN, 17 August 1985 (clippings in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1 pt 2, ANZW); D.A. Ferguson and Heather Ferguson to NZGB, 28 June 1985; E.P. Topping to NZGB, 11 November 1985; Chairman, Egmont Historical Society, to NZGB, 27 April 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA; Examples of alleging an anti- European agenda include, Sharon McIntee, TDN, 13 August 1985; Save Mt Egmont’s Name Committee, quoted in TDN, nd (around 14- 15 September 1985) (clippings in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1 pt 2, ANZW); Audrey P. Smith to NZGB, 14 November 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 64 For example, P.J. Hall, TDN, 28 August 1985 (clipping in L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA); Co- ordinator, Taranaki Women’s Refuge Collective, to NZGB, 20 November 1985; Robert McArthur for Taranaki Racism Awareness Group to Minister of Māori Affairs, 31 October 1985; R.J. Watemburg to NZGB, 1 October 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 65 Len and Bev Henderson, TH, 23 August 1985 (clipping in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1 pt 2, ANZW); P.J. Hall, TDN, 28 August 1985 (clipping in L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA); E.A. Collins to NZGB, 15 November 1985; Philip Tremewan to NZGB, 14 November 1985; Secretary, Otaraua Hapū, to NZGB, 22 November 1985; R.J. Watemburg to NZGB, 1 October 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. One objector argued that the Treaty was not relevant because Cook named the maunga before the Treaty was in existence: D.G. Spiers to NZGB, 15 May 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 66 For example, editorial, TDN, 7 August 1985; J. Wheeler, TDN, 7 January 1986 (clippings in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1 pt 2, ANZW); G.H. Browne to NZGB, 20 November 1985; M. McNeill to NZGB, 17 August 1985; E.J. and G.M. Ormond to NZGB, 16 August 1985; S.J. Stockman to NZGB, 19 November 1985; A.J. Treadwell to NZGB, 28 August 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 67 For example, R.G.L., TDN, 13 August 1985 (clipping in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1 pt 2, ANZW); T.T. Bright to NZGB, 10 November 1985; Chairman, Taranaki United Council and Taranaki Local Bodies Association, to NZGB, 8 November 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 68 For example, editorials, TDN, 7 and 12 August 1985; ‘Bob’s Bluff’, TDN, 13 August 1985 (clippings in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1 pt 2, ANZW); ‘Stop It’, TDN, 23 September 1985 (clipping in L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA); senior pupils of Pembroke School, Stratford, to NZGB, 15 August 1985; County Manager, Waimate West County Council, to Secretary for Internal Affairs, 19 September 1985; V.M. Robertson to NZGB, 12 September 1985; Administration Officer, Hawera District Council, to NZGB, 24 October 1985; County Clerk, Stratford County Council, to NZGB, nd; Administrator, Taranaki Regional Development Council, to NZGB, 17 September 1985; D.G. Spiers to NZGB, 15 May 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 69 For example, Lianne Pokere, TDN, 16 August 1985; P.G., TDN, 16 September 1985 (clippings in AFIE W5717 22863 Box 178 ENP 24/1/1 pt 2, ANZW); W.R. Halliburton to Minister of Lands, 24 October 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 70 For example, report of Rangitawhi Marae Enterprise Trust hui (meeting) at Pātea, Wanganui Chronicle, 22 August 1985 (clipping in L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA); Hinerau White to NZGB, 5 November 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 71 Ewan Morris, ‘“H” is for History: Uses of the Past in Place- Name Debates in New Zealand and Northern Ireland’, in History Australia, vol 15, no 1, 2018, pp113- 29; Laura Kostanski, ‘Toponymic Attachment’, in Carole Hough (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016, pp412- 26. Morris Public History Review, Vol. 29, 2022126 72 Ngāwhare, D. 2017, Ravaged by a Viral Storm (Online). Available: https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki- daily- news/ opinion/92307715/dennis- ngawhare- ravaged- by- a- viral- storm. See also the sources cited in note 8. 73 Vicente, M. 2020, Interview with Fiona Clark (Online). Available: https://www.adamartgallery.org.nz/wp- content/ uploads/2020/05/fiona- clark- interview_final- 1.pdf; Fiona Clark, ‘Egmontiana’ Exhibition, Adam Art Gallery, Wellington, 2019- 2020, http://www.adamartgallery.org.nz/past- exhibitions/aag- at- twenty/ (Accessed 4 May 2022). On branding, see Ron Lambert, ‘Topographically Exact to Geometrically Precise: The Mountain in Applied Art’, in Te Maunga Taranaki: Views of a Mountain, Govett- Brewster Art Gallery, New Plymouth, 2001, pp82- 83 (with examples in illustrations on pp54- 55 of the same book). 74 Ian Wedde, ‘Translation and Representation: A History of Ferries’, in Ian Wedde and Gregory Burke (eds), Now See Hear! Art, Language and Translation, Victoria University Press for Wellington City Art Gallery, Wellington, 1990, p98. On artworks, see William McAloon, ‘Views of a Mountain’, in Te Maunga Taranaki: Views of a Mountain, Govett- Brewster Art Gallery, New Plymouth, 2001, pp16- 31. 75 These issues have been discussed from Māori perspectives by writers such as Rachel Buchanan and Peter Adds, and recently from a Pākehā viewpoint by Richard Shaw: Rachel Buchanan, The Parihaka Album: Lest We Forget, Huia Publishers, Wellington, 2009 and Ko Taranaki Te Maunga, Bridget Williams Books, Wellington, 2018; Peter Adds, ‘Te Muru me te Raupatu: The Aftermath’, in Kelvin Day (ed), Contested Ground | Te Whenua i Tohea: The Taranaki Wars 1860- 1881, Huia Publishers, Wellington, 2010, pp255- 77; Richard Shaw, The Forgotten Coast, Massey University Press, Auckland, 2021, and ‘A Tale of Two Stories: Unsettling a Settler Family’s History in Aotearoa New Zealand’, in Genealogy, vol 5, no 1, 2021, article 26. See also the recent personal exploration of Taranaki history by Pākehā journalist John Campbell, 2022, From Egmont to Taranaki (Online). Available: https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/09/21/john- campbell- i- have- been- a- slow- dull- student- of- our- history/. 76 For an overview of economic and social change in Taranaki in this period, see Ron Lambert and Gail Henry, Taranaki: An Illustrated History, Reed Books, Auckland, 2000, ch 11. 77 For an overview of political and cultural developments involving Māori during this period, see Aroha Harris with Melissa Matutina Williams, ‘Rights and Revitalisation, 1970- 1990’, in Atholl Anderson, Judith Binney and Aroha Harris, Tangata Whenua: An Illustrated History, Bridget Williams Books, Wellington, 2014, ch 14. 78 Mason Durie, Te Mana, Te Kāwanatanga: The Politics of Māori Self- Determination, Oxford University Press, Auckland, 1998, pp24- 25; Alan Ward, An Unsettled History: Treaty Claims in New Zealand Today, Wellington, Bridget Williams Books, 1999, p28. 79 On Pākehā backlash in response to political, cultural and historical challenge from Māori, see Angela Ballara, Proud to Be White? A Survey of Pakeha Prejudice in New Zealand, Heinemann, Auckland, 1986, ch 27; Tim McCreanor, ‘“Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones…”: Talking Pakeha Identities’, in James H. Liu, Tim McCreanor, Tracey McIntosh and Teresia Teaiwa (eds), New Zealand Identities: Departures and Destinations, Victoria University Press, Wellington, 2005, pp52- 68; Vincent O’Malley and Joanna Kidman, ‘Contested Memory: Rā Maumahara and Pākehā Backlash’, in Joanna Kidman, Vincent O’Malley, Liana Macdonald, Tom Roa and Keziah Wallis, Fragments from a Contested Past: Remembrance, Denial and New Zealand History, Bridget Williams Books, Wellington, 2022, pp66- 90. 80 Doreen Bridgeman, quoted in Jane Dove, David Hill and Elizabeth Smither, Taranaki, Hodder & Stoughton, Auckland, 1987, p43. 81 Letters from students of Room 3, Marfell School, New Plymouth, 14 and 16 August 1985, L & S 22/2605/3, NZGBA. 82 For the background to the new histories curriculum content, see Ministry of Education, 2022, Aotearoa New Zealand’s Histories and Te Takanga o te Wā (Online). Available: https://www.education.govt.nz/our- work/changes- in- education/ aotearoa- new- zealands- histories- and- te- takanga- o- te- wa/ (Accessed 4 May 2022). 83 New Zealand Ministry of Education, Aotearoa New Zealand’s Histories in the New Zealand Curriculum, 2022, p41 (see also pp7, 23, 31). 84 ibid, p31. 85 The maunga name debate is relevant not only to the history curriculum’s ‘place and environment’ context but also to the contexts of ‘culture and identity’ and ‘government and organisation’. It is also relevant to the curriculum’s ‘Big Ideas’ about Māori history, colonisation and settlement, and the use of power: ibid, p2. 86 See Morris, ‘“H” is for History’. 87 Taranaki Tensions Rooted in Pakeha Collective Amnesia (Online), 2017. Available: https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/ programmes/morningreport/audio/201839522/taranaki- tensions- rooted- in- pakeha- collective- amnesia; Insight: Is Taranaki Coming to Terms with its Colonial Past?, (Online), 2017. Available: https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/ programmes/insight/audio/201839414/insight- is- taranaki- coming- to- terms- with- its- colonial- past. 88 Wilkinson, J. 2016, Cultural Taboos on Mt Taranaki often Ignored (Online). Available: https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/ travel- troubles/75770991/cultural- taboos- on- mt- taranaki- often- ignored; Coster, D. 2017, How a Playmate Exposed the Cultural Chasm between Maori and Pakeha (Online). Available: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/92359296/the- cultural- divide- between- maori- and- pakeha. Morris Public History Review, Vol. 29, 2022127 https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/opinion/92307715/dennis-ngawhare-ravaged-by-a-viral-storm https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/opinion/92307715/dennis-ngawhare-ravaged-by-a-viral-storm https://www.adamartgallery.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/fiona-clark-interview_final-1.pdf https://www.adamartgallery.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/fiona-clark-interview_final-1.pdf http://www.adamartgallery.org.nz/past-exhibitions/aag-at-twenty/ https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/09/21/john-campbell-i-have-been-a-slow-dull-student-of-our-history/ https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/09/21/john-campbell-i-have-been-a-slow-dull-student-of-our-history/ https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/changes-in-education/aotearoa-new-zealands-histories-and-te-takanga-o-te-wa/ https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/changes-in-education/aotearoa-new-zealands-histories-and-te-takanga-o-te-wa/ https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201839522/taranaki-tensions-rooted-in-pakeha-collective-amnesia https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201839522/taranaki-tensions-rooted-in-pakeha-collective-amnesia https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/insight/audio/201839414/insight-is-taranaki-coming-to-terms-with-its-colonial-past https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/insight/audio/201839414/insight-is-taranaki-coming-to-terms-with-its-colonial-past https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/75770991/cultural-taboos-on-mt-taranaki-often-ignored https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/75770991/cultural-taboos-on-mt-taranaki-often-ignored https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/92359296/the-cultural-divide-between-maori-and-pakeha https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/92359296/the-cultural-divide-between-maori-and-pakeha